CVE-2000-1201
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCheck Point FireWall-1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (high CPU) via a flood of packets to port 264.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceCheck Point FireWall-1 versions through approximately 2000 suffer from a denial of service vulnerability where remote attackers can cause excessive CPU consumption by flooding UDP packets to port 264 (the firewall management port). This is a classic resource exhaustion attack against the firewall's control plane.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Check Point FireWall-1 is installedRun 'ps -ef | grep -i firewall' or check installed software packages on the system for Check Point FireWall-1 componentsAffected if Check Point FireWall-1 is present on the system
-
Verify port 264 is listeningRun 'netstat -an | grep 264' or 'ss -ulnp | grep 264' to determine if UDP port 264 is open and listening on any interfaceAffected if UDP port 264 is bound to an interface accessible from the network
-
Assess network exposure of port 264Review firewall rules or network ACLs to determine if port 264 UDP is reachable from untrusted/external networks. Check if the management interface is bound to a public IP or DMZ rather than only internal networksAffected if Port 264 is accessible from untrusted or external network segments without filtering or rate-limiting
-
Check for existing mitigation on port 264Inspect any upstream firewall, router ACLs, or IDS/IPS rules for existing packet filtering or rate-limiting configurations applied to UDP port 264 trafficAffected if No packet filtering, rate-limiting, or ACL restrictions are currently applied to port 264 traffic from external sources
The environment is affected if Check Point FireWall-1 is installed and UDP port 264 is exposed to untrusted networks without protective filtering in place.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement packet filtering or rate-limiting on port 264 at the network perimeter, or upgrade to a patched version of FireWall-1 if available.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2000-1201 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2000-1201 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data